As for the NRA being a positive force they are basically against any kind of gun regulation including safe storage of gun laws that would protect esp. children. Hard to believe anyone would be against that (other than them). To get any kind of meaningful change either the leadership of the NRA has to change or you would have to work around them. Obama just said the other day that his biggest failure as Pres has been his inability to get any change in gun control laws esp after all of these crazy incidents.
It seems the arson charge was related to his trashing, burning and other damage he did to his family's home after it was sold and he was evicted; the new owners declined to prosecute so that would not have precluded his obtaining a firearm. The court ordered involuntary institutionalization, however, would have if it had been properly entered into the government database but it was not for unknown reasons. Whether that included an excessive workload or a lackadaisical attitude or belief that such things were unimportant is unknown at this time. All too many advocates of widespread gun ownership believe that any restrictions on gun ownership are an affront to the Constitution, including those on felons and the insane. If you take my question as a personal insult that's your problem but I notice that you have offered no indication of when or how gun ownership should be "well regulated." Why not offer a solution rather than whine about how hurt you were?
Short of better funding for medical health research and locking up certified whackos in loonie bins, which would only be of little help IMO, I don't know if there's an effective government solution to the issue of mass shootings. Without eliminating all guns in existence and making them illegal, which is not a realistic thing, I don't see how you stop these mass shootings. I think an approach could be to start a private not for profit organization whose focus is to identify and support responsible volunteer concealed carriers with regular training as citizen defenders. The organization would create a strict criteria for members that is more stringent than the government requirements and would possibly include signing over rights to view entire health history. No arrests or convictions, pass drug test, no mental health history, psychological exam, accuracy testing as well as basic situational awareness for CC's, safe storage verification, etc. It would also re-certify it's members on a regular basis. The organization would work with government agencies (DEC - hunting/fishing) and businesses to provide discounts/freebies to members in order to incentivize membership. Funding to support the organization would have to come via donors and maybe other organizations like the NRA who despite being demonized by the left do have good intentions. Marketing that shed a positive light on members as community service defenders trying to stop these type of public mass shootings on innocent people would be required. Businesses offering member discounts could display a sticker welcoming the organizations concealed citizen protectors as a much better deterrent than the existing "gun free zone" or "no gun" stickers that seem to be frequent targets.
First you have to get universal gun checks (which the NRA opposes) which would close up many loopholes. That's the starter. Then on a local level you 'd have to have cooperation not obstructionism. So that laws on the books etc will work and not as many nuts can fall through the cracks. Although many NRA members are responsible gun owners and for reform the org actively lobbies against most gun laws. Including gun safety in homes. The bottom line with the NRA: who are they representing anyways. Gun owners or gun manufacturers?
If you're looking for something truly ignorant just scroll up to the picture above you. But I'm sure it's right up your alley.
Btw having the NRA in charge of organizing responsible gun control is like putting BP in charge of regulating off shore drilling. So if you're against the federal gov. involvement and want to make this a voluntary project you're basically saying you're ok with the present setup. Because the private sector on a volunteer basis isn't going to do anything.
You really think sending a bunch of nimrods out into the community is going to cut back on the number of these incidents? What you'll end up with is gun battles and bullets flying everywhere if one of your volunteers happens to cross paths with another lunatic. It's amazing that you won't even consider additional measures to keep weapons out of the hands of those who may be dangerous and very telling in how dedicated the gun lobby is to maintaining the status quo. What about prosecution for those who enable these events by not properly reporting people like Houser and documentation for the registry? What about prosecuting people who sell well weapons intended for transport for those areas where they are prohibited? Is there any action at all that would approve of to ensure firearm possession is "well regulated?"
There is no evidence to back this up. There are 1/20 citizens who are concealed carriers today and there aren't crazy gun battles with concealed carriers involved all over the place. It just doesn't happen. If you were stuck in a theater with a lunatic shooting wouldn't you want a good guy with a gun sitting next to you? You may not want our help but if we're there, we will help you and your family. As it is today, most concealed carriers will avoid places that have signs stating "no guns" or "gun free zone", so you'll have to fend for yourself when the crazy pops up. We'll be elsewhere. The laws were already in place. This guy shouldn't have had a gun according to the law of the land. Enforce the laws. What new law would have prevented this? The existing ones should have. I have no problems with new laws if they actually make sense to take guns away from the loonies and not people who shouldn't have them taken away. The government who you believe is going to solve everything failed. Again. It's time for responsible gun owners to try.
This is what police officers think about it. http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legisl...d-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/
Im out in vegas and one of the first things I did was hit the shooting range. Jerseys gun laws are just fucking stupid. People should be allowed to carry weapons. Im not going to hust let someone hurt or rob me or my family because its "wrong" in the liberal mind to have a gun. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Are you speaking of responsible gun owners like the guy in Florida who shot and killed another movie goer who had the temerity to check his phone for a message from his babysitter before the movie even started? The laws you say are already in place do nothing to keep people from buying quantities of guns in other states and transporting them to places like New York and New Jersey. Until the legal owners of those guns in Virginia or the Carolinas know those guns will be traced and they will be held responsible for the guns crossing that line there can be no solution. Again, I ask how do you propose to slow the movement of firearms from their legal use to their illegal use if you believe today's laws are adequate, just weakly enforced?
Actually that is an article written by a guy who makes his living teaching people how to shoot guns, hardly a disinterested observer. But I'll bet you knew that already.
yea ... that's who I'm referring to. what was it you were saying about red herrings earlier? we were discussing the movie theater shooting. the laws I was discussing should have stopped that guy from buying a gun. leave it to you to argue something that wasn't even being discussed. what does that have to do with incompetent government officials allowing lunatics to buy guns? your attempt to strawman is called, again. I said the current laws should have stopped the specific case being discussed. That's all. it's becoming pretty clear you don't have much interest in reasonable discussion. I probably should have kept you in the cooler.
I can make a survey say whatever I want it to by how the questions are worded. I can send it to whatever demographic will produce the results I desire and I can then pick and choose which data I choose to discuss and can then paraphrase the data also as I summarize my results. That may be good enough for you but I give it zero credibility.
Two guys go into the movies, both have a gun. They each shoot and kill people, one because of a cell phone and spilled popcorn, the other because he is insane. Your plan would have approved of the first guy being there armed, my plan would have approved of neither being there with a gun. Is that enough straw for you? Just because you don't want to answer a question does not make it irrelevant.
